SRG MEMBER REVIEW

1
SRG MEMBER REVIEW
2
ASSUMPTIONS

• Reviewers are the engine that drives the peer
  review system
• Reviewers commit extraordinary time personal
  sacrifice to serve the NIH
• System should be such that all applications are
  given an unbiased, fair and high quality review.
• Reviewers must know that service on a review
  committee is not going to jeopardize their
  chances for NIH support
• Member applications should be handled in a
  consistent manner across CSR/IRGs/Study Sections

3
POLICY

• The SRG cannot review an application on which one
  of its members is a investigator
• The IRG Chief arranges to have the application
  reviewed by another SRG with appropriate
  expertise or by a SEP
• If a SEP, members of the conflicting SRG may
  participate but no more than 50 percent of the
  total number of individuals involved in the
  review may be from the conflicting SRG.
• The SRA of the conflicting SRG cannot be in
  charge of the review
• A member of the conflicting SRG cannot chair the
  review.

4
What is an application considered Member
Conflict

• PI on application is currently a member of the
  assigned SRG
• Some other conflict causes an application to be
  moved to another study section or SEP ( the
  applicant was related to or worked with a current
  reviewer, or had recently served on a relevant
  study section rare, etc.)

5
What is the extent of the issue?

• Current reviewers Applicants that served on
  any CSR review panel in the same Council round in
  which they had an application reviewed were
  considered to be current reviewers.

Table. R01 applications by fiscal year in which
they were reviewed

1 In this and subsequent tables, FY 2005
include the January and May Council rounds only.
6
SEP

• If a SEP is composed of fewer than 40 chartered
  members (current and recent members within the
  past two years), CSR policy states that
  percentile rankings will be against the CSR All
  base (base of all applications reviewed in CSR
  study sections that are percentiled
• If it is 40 or above, then the percentile is
  against the parent committee

7
Issues

• Some members question process
• Are they given the same considerations?
• If they are in a 40 or less SEP should they be
  percentiled against CSR All or parent committee?
• Are CSR policies being followed correctly (SRA
  conflicts, etc.)
• Proliferation of Boutique SEPs (7 applications or
  less)
• Members tend to do exceptionally well in
  Boutiques
• CSR trying to assign member applications to
  another SS instead of SEPS

8
SEP vs. Non-SEP Review
Table. All applications represented in this
table were submitted by reviewers serving at the
time that they submitted an application.
Comparisons are review outcomes for applications
submitted by current reviewers whose applications
were reviewed in a member conflict SEP vs. those
reviewed by a committee other than a membership
conflict SEP
9
DISCUSSION

• Are Member applications treated fairly?
• Are current practices for reviewing member
  applications appropriate and consistent?
• What improvements can be made?